Final Draft for the Proposal for New Rules and a World Portal to a New Map

Below are the proposed contitution for the server, the proposed rules of engagement to govern warfare, proposed rules and scenarios for the proposed new map, and an explanation of why updating only the rules and not the map is not a viable option. Areteee and I have drawn upon many sources, including, but not limited to, Mazznoff's constitution, Enton's proposals, and other players' direct input, to compile this, what I believe to be comprehensive reforms for the server and most importantly to the political sphere of the server. In short, we, the people of the server, have compiled here not simply a petition, but a concrete plan of action for the server which covers many aspects of the situation. The following proposal represents the work and thoughts of the majority of the server and we believe that these actions can be taken with little effort or risk, yet will be accompanied by great reward. We hope that you'll take the time to read it all before you say no. Thank you for considering our input. — V1adimirr 2013/03/01 02:06

Server Constitution

Server Constitution

1. The legal system of the server falls into two categories: the Admin Law and the Autism Law. The Admin Law prevails over the Autism Law, if Admin Law doesn’t explicitly say otherwise. The staff withhold the power to make judgements relating to any player or entity and enforce said judgements, within the confines of this constitution.

2. Main definitions:

a. player – an individual registered on the server

b. non-political player – a player who doesn’t want to take part in server politics. All players, unless they desire otherwise, are non-political players.

c. political player – a player who wants to take part in server politics. He consents to be bound by the Rules of Engagement, part of Autism Law.

d. moderator – a player, who has the obligation to exercise control over other players in terms of compliance with the constitution by the latter and have the right to take steps necessary to prevent and punish the breaches by the latter

e. admin – a player who oversees the moderators’ conduct and has the right to take steps necessary to prevent and punish the breaches by both players and moderators. They withhold the power to judge supremely on any issue

h. citizen - a player who identifies as a member of a community (settlement, city-state, nation)

i. active - a player is active, as opposed to inactive, when he has played within the last 30 days.

The Admin Law

I – General Provisions

3. The players, their rights and freedoms are of supreme value. Their recognition, compliance with, defense of and enforcement are their own, moderators’ and admins’ responsibilities.
4. Players have the right to play without being unduly harassed, griefed or killed.
5. Griefing is forbidden, unless Autism Law stipulates otherwise. Cases of allowed griefing must be limited by the Autism Law.
6. If a player wishes to play alone, he shall be given that opportunity.
7. Cheating or abusing bugs to the point of breaking the game for others or the game balance is forbidden.
8. The Constitution must be amended if new legislation is passed. New legislation may be introduced by players, moderators, admins. It has to be approved by the collective decision of moderators and admins in order to be passed.
9. The official server language is English. Excessive use of any language other than English is frowned upon, and action, herein defined as warnings, kicks, and bans sequentially, shall be taken by staff if complaints by active players are received.
10. These provisions shall be interpreted and enforced by the staff.

II – Criminal Law

11. For a violation of the constitution, the moderators or admins may take one or several of following steps:
• le kick
• le confiscation of the items (only for cheating and/or bug abuse)
• le gaol (TN: gaol means prison)
• le kill
• le ban
12. When determining ban longevity, staff should take into account the following factors: the player’s political status, duration of the presence on the server, amount of damage done, previous ban history.
13. Ban longevity for political players attacking / griefing non-political players shall be harsher. Ban longevity for non-political players attacking / griefing non-political or political players shall not differ from ban longevity for political players attacking / griefing political players not in course of war.
14. Grounds for being exempt from criminal responsibility: self-defence (being under attack), previous provocation by the victim.
15. The moderator should stipulate the ban reason in English for the benefit of the non-banned.
16. A player may appeal a ban in the Mod Court. The Mod Court consists of the staff and a decision is passed by simple majority of mods and admins votes. Admins’ vote prevail, should there be a deuce. The server's owner’s vote prevails, should there be a deuce between admins. If the ban was unlawful, the ban is considered void. In this case the Mod Court also issues an official warning for the moderator responsible.
17. Grounds for appeal: non-existence of a breach of the constitution, excessiveness of the ban, failure to stipulate the ban reason, existence of grounds for being exempt from criminal responsibility.
18. The Mod Court may dismiss the appeal only if the grounds for the appeal are not present, may consider it and deliver its verdict. The moderator, whose ban is appealed, may not take part in Mod Court proceeding. If the claim is brought by one moderator / admin against the other moderator, they are both exempt from the proceeding. It may decide that the ban was lawful or unlawful.

III – Moderators

19. Moderators and admins shall be guided by the Constitution, justice and humanism.
20. An existing mod may be put up for impeachment on the wiki by any player, should they provide a reason, including two official warnings from the Mod Court. The final decision rests with the admins.
21. Players shall be nominated for mod elections. The final decision rests with the admins.
22. Moderators shall work in harmony to help players.

The Autism Law

IV - Unions

23. Players shall be free to form unions, be they settlements, city-states, or nations and pledge citizenship to said entity.
24. Players shall be pledged to only one entity at any given time and may not change their citizenship more than once in a calendar month.
25. A settlement is herein defined as an area claimed by between one and four citizens who have built together for their common good. The area claimed shall be negligable and may far not extent beyond structures built by said settlement.
26. A city-state is herein defined as an area claimed by a collection of 5 or more active citizens who have built together for their common good. The land claimed shall be modest, though may extend beyond the immediate area of the city-state's structures. Citizens of a city-state shall be non-political.
27. A nation is herein defined as an area claimed by a collection of 5 or more active citizens who have built together for their common good and created a wiki page representing themselves as a nation. The land claimed may be reaching and extend far beyond the immediate area of the nation's structures.
28. Any land claim by any entity may be challenged and brought before a mod court as being excessive or aggressive. The power to alter claims is preserved in the staff.
29. A nation may contain multiple settlements or city-states, but shall not contain (sub-)nations.
30. The majority (and at least four) of the active citizens of a city-state must agree to change their status to a nation.
31. All citizens of nations are considered political players and therefore are required to comply with the Rules of Engagement.

V – Civil Law

32. The trade is free. The players must observe principle of good faith in their commercial relations, must perform undertaken obligations responsibly and in due time.
33. The contracts may be in written form on the wiki. Players may get a moderator to enforce the contract. In this case, upon failure to perform contractual obligations, the injured party has the right to resort to the moderator.
34. The subject matter of contract must be legal under Admin Law. Assassination contracts may exist.
35. Tournaments and totalizators may exist. These can be conducted with the help of mods (e.g. spawning mobs against a contending player)
36. Labour contracts may exist. The pay should be fair and reflect the nature of labour.
37. Contracts may be evaluated and enforced by the staff at the request of players.
38. It's up to the defaulting party to prove the case.

Rules of Engagement

Rules of Engagement

At any time a nation may declare war on another nation (Non-nation entities may never declare war, but may voluntarily enter a war or agree to a war if they so choose. Settlements may also withdraw from any war with no penalty). The declaration must be given unequivocally from leader to leader. It is the responsibility of the declaring nation to ensure that the receiving nation's government is fully aware of their status of being warred upon.
Upon this declaration, the defending nation may choose from three options:

To immediately surrender and pay a tribute agreed to by the attacking nation.

To refuse the declaration entirely.

To accept the declaration of war and immediately enter into a state of war with the attacking nation.

Surrendering
In order to surrender, the defending nation must acquiese to the terms set forth by the attacking nation. These terms may be negotiated, but both nations must agree and abide by them for the surrender to be valid. If the defending nation defaults on its debt, be it by choice or poverty, the surrender is no longer valid and the defending nation is regarded as having refused the declaration entirely. If the nation is for any reason unable to refuse the declaration, their status as a nation is revoked and they must function as a settlement. They may subsequently petition a tribunal of mods to reinstate their status as a nation, but said mods are under no obligation to do so.

Refusing
Refusing a declaration of war affords the defending nation complete immunity from the perils of war with the declaring nation for a week. The nation need not pay tribute nor engage in battle- the declaration is utterly null and void. This must be explicitely made clear in the wiki in order to be a valid response [Author's Note: Perhaps a specific page would be made simply to recognize declarations of war and the responses of the other nations]. One week must pass before the attacking nation may once again declare war on the refusing nation. Upon refusing a sum of 3 declarations of war (not necessarily all from any one specific nation), any attacking nation may dispute any further refusals from the nation. In order to make null such a refusal, the attacking nation must convince a tribunal of moderators [Author's Note: Or just one moderator perhaps that has been elected to the position of wartime negotiator/Abriter] that their war is warranted and not simply an unjustified excuse to slaughter innocents. If the tribunal accepts the attacking nation's justification, the defending nation may either surrender or accept the war.

Accepting
If a nation accepts a declaration of war, the two nations are immediately said to be at war. Before accepting, both nations must agree to the stakes of the war: what each nation will gain or lose depending on the outcome of the war. This must be clearly stated in the wiki to be valid and enforced. The following otherwise unacceptable actions are lawful during a state of war:

Players of a nation can kill members of any enemy nation on said player's territory at any time.

Lawful Raids

A raid is categorised as any hostile military action taken without the consent of both parties, though both sides must have agreed to be currently in a state of war.

There may be no griefing of blocks, though non-block entities (here defined as items such as torches or bed or other non-cube-shaped placements, excluding containers, stairs, slabs, and fences) may be destroyed.

All attackers are required to return any valuable loot at the request of the defenders.

Defenders may lawfully keep any spoils they strip from the raiders.

Lawful Battles

In order for a battle to be officially and lawfully recognised, it must have the full agreement of both parties' governments and both sides must have agreed to be at a state of war. A member of the staff must oversee and regulate the battle to be sure it is in accordance with these rules

There may be no griefing of blocks, though non-block entities (here defined as items such as torches or bed or other non-cube-shaped placements, excluding containers, stairs, slabs, and fences) may be destroyed.

Any inventory loot attained by either side may be kept in an officially sanctioned battle as the spoils of war.

The battle is won when one side is unequivocally absent from the battlefield.

Violation of this treaty will result in capitulation of the battle, the war, or the status of 'nation.' Depending on the circumstances it could even warrant a ban from the server. Do not deviate from these rules.

Lawful Assassinations

The player to be assassinated and the contractor must be at a state of war, though the assassin may be any player so inclined.

The player to be assassinated must be forewarned that he has a bounty on his head at least 24 hours before the assassination.

Immediately after the assassination, the assassin must declare his act as completed.

The assassin is, until the end of the war, considered to be a political-player who may be lawfully killed himself in retaliation.

Any loot acquired from either the assassin or the assassinated may be kept if it was dropped by either party less than 10 minutes after the act.

The first nation to win 3 battles is declared the victor of the war. The loser of the war must submit to the agreed upon punishment. Failure to comply results in the automatic revoking of their status as nation (see: surrender).

Map Concept

Map Concept

World Suggestions

Keep old map as spawn, create a world portal to a new, virgin world

Large Biomes

Don't just spawn a randomly generated map

Find a custom made, yet blank, map online

Pick a custom seed from the many that we can suggest

Randomly pick seeds but do a thorough scouting of the area before deciding to stay on the map and generate a new map if it turns out to be shit

Pick a world that suits our needs and not just the first one we spawn

We need to choose a design that does not have massive continental sprawl. We need a large biome map with multiple continents all about. hopefully one that will have 7-10 continents within an area of 10,000×10,000. If it is possible it would be cool to edit the map so the northern and southern poles are iced over (switching the biomes around) idk if thats possible or not. the most important thing though is getting a good seed before the map is even generated this can be done with map previewers like Amidst. Also i suggest we have certain outlying zones or degignate a certian continent for freebuild possibly. I like the Idea of Using Cabastards boat he built in Rhodes for a starter ship which we all get 1 or 2 chests in.If we do start a new map and we implement the mandatory shit about nationns the staff need to learn better moderation to determine when a nation(who may or may not be acting fully within the rules) is simply making the game unfun for others. At the end of the day the rules dont really matter we are all here to have fun and if wea re not having fun then there is no point and we are just being autists. -Shako

New World-Specific Rules

A limit on how far political settlements can build.

6-8 solution — a 6k block square (6^2=36k blocks) (3000k to -3000k etc.) within an 8k block square (thus 6-8). Nations can only exist and claim land within the 6k block square (other settlements can be built in here, too). Outside of the 6k square there is room for settlements that do not want to get involved in politics and like keeping their distance from this autism. Would be a way to counter the huge distances we have with the current map without hurting the little antisocial bernd who just wants to build alone but feel like he's with other people. Alternatives: 5-7 (8 square is pretty big?). -Areteee

Have periodic DM (mod) mediated adventures for nations

This idea will be expended upon here soon. For now, imagine mod/player-created dungeons or mazes with big rewards (donated, not spawned in) at the end. Other possibilities include the introduction of other opportunities for strife or commradery between nations (perhaps a new vein of diamonds is rumored to lie right on the border of two nations- who owns them? Do the nations share the diamonds or do they come up with a contract or do they start a war?). These scenarios would not create butthurt since they would be specifically designed by the mods (or perhaps a secret multinational group of staff and players that work in the shadows) for fun and would only be created for those nations and players that would agree to the terms and would not get isnta-autist if they lose or don't get their way. -V1adimirr conveying Flakese's idea

This seems similar to the way i discovered the record “Heretical Zantalus” in the Mari spawn's library. It was hidden in a secret passage discovered by flipping a lever behind a statue. It gives a great feel even if the reward is non-monetary. I even set one up in Condeura that followed a legend (which i made up) about a hero who died in a cave when it collapsed, leaving behind enchanted armor and a legendary bow. ~Darynu

Other Suggestions

Decorate the world portal

I created an ebin sloop (ship) at the dock near the current spawn. I would suggest making the world portal inside the hold and then I could create an identical sloop in the other world with another portal inside. We could make that ship near the beach of the new world so it would be like you took a voyage from one map to the other. I think this would be more fun and feel creating than just a boring portal. -vlad

Endlösung of ze question: Why cant it be implemented on the current map?!?!?

Endlösung of ze question: Why cant it be implemented on the current map?!?!?

It is clear that adding only a new map will not solve the problems. New rules, as proposed above, need to be added. However, will adding only new rules solve it? We think not.

In the current map settlements are already very far apart, people live in settlements and nations thousands of blocks away from each other. Trying to implement concepts like the 6-8 one, which will attempt to solve the problem of player drift, is hardly possible without a clear world border. Furthermore, currently the nations are spread all over the map and its highly unlikely they would just agree to lose this status because they arent in a newly designed zone. This zone would only have the desired effect as a new map. This is because the new rule set and nation system proposed with this map upgrade develops a different style of playing, requiring people to make a decision on where they'd like to stay and would lead to a different building style.

Other factors that highlight the importance for a new map include simple, yet important ones, like the enthusiam that comes with a new map. While enthusiasm can be exist for a new spawn, it is folly to say that the same level of excitement would accompany a new map. With a new map comes ALL new possibilities, wheras with a new spawn it is merely the continuation of old possibilities with new land.

A great boon to the admin's position is that, if a world portal map is set up, in the event of a catestrophic failure of the new rules, as many people seem to imagine happening on a new map, the map may simply be deleted and no harm will be done to the citizens that did not willingly accept that risk. Indeed, the only work necessary for the admin in such an event is the creation and then subsequent destruction of the map. This stands in stark contrast to more daring requests of an entire new map, which would require significantly more work in creation and indeed in destruction, should the case arise.

Similarly, a parallel, world portal map affords the mods, staff, and rulemakers the option of experimenting with new rules, for instance declaring the end a PVP zone. Again, because the only players who would be in the new world would willingly accept the risks and problems associated with any problematic new rules, there would only be benefits to such a system. Bad or destructive rules could be quickly and quietly tried and dismissed and good and creative rules could be tested and then initiated on the larger, home map to the benefit othose who didn't even have to risk anything in the trial.

In the same spirit as trying new rules, trying out new systems of play would be possible on a new map. Ideally the map wouldnt be like this one, a huge clusterfuck of oceans dividing everyone and a mess of chunks that have been generated under different generators. Large biomes could perhaps be tried, as, again, the only players that would play on it would willingly accept the risks of any problems that would be created by such a map. If, however, the large biomes are tried and everyone loves it and there are no problems, in the far, far, distant future when there is a new, main map for the or another server, large biomes can be ruled out or in with more than just a guess as to what that means for gameplay.

Combining these and more factors with a 2/3 majority vote for a new, it is clear to us that a two-world solution is the best. It both respects the wishes of the dominating majority of the voters while giving the minority hardly much of a reason to complain, as they will have absolutely no obligation to even notice the new world's existence. Players should be free to choose on which map they play, with spawn being in the old map complaining about potential player loss would be just indirectly forcing the players to play where a minority wants them to. It remains questionable whether the current map's problems can be solved by this, but admittedly, this is somewhat of an experiment. This is nothing but a huge experiment. We believe, however, that not only will the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, we believe there hardly are any disadvantages at all. We see no reason why it shouldnt at least be tried, for at least a time. Maybe it fails and then we simply delete it. However, maybe it works and the server's quality, playerbase, and morale improve - we can only hope!

The final decision lies with you, te3, and we hope that you will weigh all of these factors. While we are not naiive and believe that a new map and new rules will make this server a builder's paradise, we still believe that we have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Please, just give us a chance to prove you wrong. That's all we ask. Just a chance to try to improve the server. After all, we all want the same thing: to have fun. Why not try every option when there's little to lose?